Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

What’s funny about SF: how a liberal like me, who believes in the free market but also believes in very strong regulation wherever there are market failures and spillovers (i.e., almost everywhere, like affordable housing), can feel like there is a bizarro left fringe here that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the USA.
This legislation is completely nuts. Capping rents to 1/3 of income? Allowing tenants to add roommates at will? Jeebus.

Personally I think tenants should be able to add roommates at will, but that those added roommates shouldn’t then be entitled to the rent control protection if the original renter moves out unless the landlord agreed to add the new roommates to the lease when they moved in.
But the means testing on rent increases is just stupid, it would be so manipulated by renters that a think a lot of landlords would get out of the business, selling to TIC developers that would Ellis Act the building and parcel it out. Further limiting the rental stock in the city.

How is this even legal…especially the no OMI bit. So if I had a 3 unit building, each with children in it, I can’t move into one? Even if I had kids of my own and were facing financial difficulties of my own?
I’m one of the most liberal (I think Kucinich is centrist) out there, but I think this is downright bat-shit insane. People like Daly and Mar are the ones that give liberals a bad name. This isn’t socialism…it’s outright theft.

I’m a renter and I still think this is horribly stupid legislation, I can’t believe it passed the BOS, definitely agree with J Stanton.
As asad said all it will result in is less apartments being available and more evictions due to Ellis Act. If I was a landlord and this passed into law I would Ellis Act as soon as the economy turned around and be done with crazy SF rental laws.
As far as allowing roommates to be added at will, that would result in an original tenant charging rent increases to the new roommates, while paying less themselves.

Absolutely the most insane legislation I have ever read. I was just looking at a 6 unit building where the tenant had been inthe unit for 14 years and was paying $925 for a unit worth $3,100. The guy was renting out rooms to people, living for free himself and making money on top of that. This is on the back of the landlord, but unless you can prove it’s happening (very difficult) there is nothing to be done. This tenant is a self employed artist (using ‘artist’ very losely) who colects his income in cash…does not report his rental income and the landlord wouldn’t be able to raise his rent!
Clearly this is not the case all of the time with low rent tenants who want roomates, but this IS the issue that landlords must guard against. Why is it the landlords responsibility to provide low income housing? Most of the landlords I know (I know a ton) are not Lembi sized operators, they are immigrants, the corner store operator, the dry cleaner, and the grocery store owner. Like it or not BOS, you are putting the onus on some extremely hard working people to provide cheap housing to tenants. The perception that tenants rights groups put out there that landlords are these monacle wearing, top hat weilding rich people is ludicris!

If this legislation passes, I certainly won’t be renting my apartment to anyone with children. Mr. Daly might say that’s discrimination of some sort, but he’s left me no choice. If I fall on hard times, which in this economy is a real possibility, where would I go?

asad,
I can tell you tenants in France have a boatload of rights.
1 – The lease is by 3 year increments. It’s binding on the landlord side but not on the renter side… A landlord can end a lease only at the end of any 3 year period (if you miss it, you are screwed for 3 years), and has to have a good reason: selling or moving in are the 2 main ones. You can’t stop a lease without a good reason, but the renters can move out with a 3 month notice anytime and without reason.
2 – Landlord move-ins are very strictly controlled. You need to give 6 months notice and if the renter doesn’t agree, you have to go through a lengthy (but not too costly) process. 5 places I sold were done after an end-of-lease. One guy didn’t move out when given a selling notice and it took 16 months to kick the guy out. I did one move-in and the people in my place took 10 months to move out (and go to social housing).
3 – If you give a notice of end-of-lease for sale reason, you have to offer the place to buy to the tenant when you do that. The offer price has to be reasonable, and if the ultimate sale price is lower than the initial offer, you cannot sell unless the former tenant has refused this price as well.
4 – Rent control is national in France. It is limited to ~inflation rate. At the end of each 3-year lease term you can do a readjustment of up to 10%, but you need to provide comps which is pretty easy. Any RE agent can give you that.
In short being a landlord in France is no small feat. But the price I paid for my places (1/4 of today’s prices, France’s RE bubble still has to pop) made it really worthwhile. At today’s price (just like in SF) this is not worth the effort or the risk.
Hate SF’s renter protection? Try France!

Of course the members of this list are preaching to the choir.
However, this action of the Supervisors confirms the wisdom of never investing in rental property in San Francisco.
If you wish to own real estate, there are many other good places to do so throughout the country and the world.
In NYC some years ago, they used the incomes of the tenant to END rent control on some apartments. If I recall, rent control was eliminated if the tenant made more than $165,000 per year. Many tenants on the upper east side refused to provide their tax returns and moved instead.
San Francisco should have a similar law, but for the foreseeable future it will not.

Daly needs to beat it. His measures are absolutely ridiculous. Tenants do not need more rights in this city. It is already so unfair for landlords to survive with existing measures.
For all your renters out there who agree with Daly and his tactics, take note that it raises the bar for all first time buyers. Just think, you save extra money every month because of your low rent in hopes of buying one day. But the property you want to buy has a family with children in it – so you can’t do anything about it. Restrictions, restrictions….oh wait, I meant tenant rights. What will you be able to buy?
There is not enough balance for both renters and landlords in this city, and is not good for anybody. Long term thinking people…

I’m all for helping people with children and folks who fall on hard times, but this is ridiculous. Why should that help be provided by landlords (who are private citizens)? Daly is approaching this in the wrong way: government should subsidize these social services that he is requiring landlords to provide in this legislation.
Show me a landlord who will rent to a 60+, disabled renter these days. I don’t think you’ll really find one.
I await the day that Daly is out…

Yup. Inasane.
Luckily I only rent 1 bedrooms currently so unlikely to be affected by this – but will certainly add families with children to the list I don’t think it is wise to rent to.
More discriminatory policies from Daly.

What motivates Chris Daly? Is it to come up with things that everyone hates, even the general SF population who consider themselves liberal? Maybe he is just joking with us to see how much bizzaro behavior we can take before we finally cry foul and he says “just kidding.”
I am a renter and think his proposals are insane. Who is going to verify the income level? Will the landlord get to see your tax returns every year? It would work as well as the new Valencia Gardens; everyone moves into low income housing and then parks their BMW there because now they can afford one…..but I digress.

The article sez the existing law already protects elderly, disabled and terminally ill. Why is it so ridiculous to add children in that mix?
According to the logic, why limit it to children?
Pets are also effectively defenseless against the heartless decision of a capitalist property owner actually, you know, choosing to take up residence in, you know, his or her private property?
Daly really needs to get on this – it’s just unfair for goldfish or gerbils to be flushed down toilets, or cats & dogs left to fend for themselves on the street, to the benefit of a title-holder…..
Animals are children, too.

This is so stupid. If we really want to help people, we should give poor families rent assistance or help people with rent as part of unemployment. As it is, this ordinance randomly penalizes individual landlords unlucky enough to have a tenant lose their job/have kids/stick around in the same apartment for a long time. Other landlords with identical (or better) financial circumstances might have better luck in the tenant lottery and will be able to make money on their properties.

Well, I was already kinda sour on renting to people with kids after the last one destroyed my condo (~$7k damages) but this seals it. I would rather my place go empty for months than rent to somebody with children.

One of the reasons, I believe, that so much of the city looks so run down and ratty (beautiful from a distance but dirty with pealing paint close up) is that landlords refrain from performing all but emergency related maintenance. Why keep a building in tip-top shape for a renter who has more rights to your property than you have and pays a fraction of the market value?

If this passed and was signed by the mayor, what would happen to the overall market?
1. It would be very difficult to secure a reasonable place to live if you had low income, or were at risk of lower income.
2. It would be harder to find a place to rent if you had children
3. More landlords would get out of the business, probably via use of the Ellis Act
and maybe:
4. Increased use of the Ellis Act would make it harder to find condo-convertible properties, increasing prices on eviction-clean buildings.
In short, it would do exactly the opposite of what is intended. There is some law (named after the originator) that says that increasing tax rates only increases revenue to a certain point, after which revenue starts declining. The same curve is true for regulations, I think, where the x-axis is # of regulations and the y-axis is quality of living.
Also, how is capping rents based on income really going to work? No landlord is going to rent to you unless you have higher income. And if I lose my income, or take a lower paying job, do I immediately get a large rent reduction? Can landlords demand my income every year to see if they can re-raise the rent again?

reason number 1,000 why I need to get out of this town.
First target the property owners and businessmen, then go after the doctors, lawyers and teachers.
Congratulations to Daly, Mar, et al on the board, I haven’t seen this strategy executed so well since Stalin, Castro or Pol Pot.

I think this is great. I am a renter in a rent controlled property. The more powere i have over my landlord the better off I am financially. I love this city whereby 70% of us control elections, yet dont have to pay a dime (except for passthroughs) I hope CD will get rid of these.
The best way to pay for more social services is to tax the landowners. If they cant afford to pay the fees, they and can sell or loose their place to foreclosure. Someone eles will buy it and be stuck with me and my new room mates.

Chris Daly doesn’t give a shit about the real impact of his legislation. He doesn’t care that most of his “tenants rights” bills cost the city millions in legal fees before they are eventually overturned as having been illegal in the first place (most recent example, the “tenant harassment” measure championed by Daly and passed by voters a couple of years ago.) He doesn’t care that most have the opposite effect to what was intended.
Legal prohibitions notwithstanding, landlords now have a strong incentive to avoid renting to older people, families with children, or anyone who is likely to stay in their apartment long-term. And I guarantee you that the smart landlords will choose the upwardly-mobile 20/30-something couple and deny renting to anyone else, so that they aren’t stuck with a permanent low-rent tenant forever.
If SF wants subsidized housing for certain classes of residents, than the city (all of us) should pay for it. Owner-subsidized housing, as we have now, just doesn’t work and is totally unfair.

The comment by Fonzi about French controls on property explains why such a large and increasing proportion of apartments in Paris are converted to tourist rentals or are second homes for French or foreigners.
It also explains why the government must subsidize, through incentives and tax reductions, new construction that is subject to these controls.
The history of France, post-war, is burdened by long-term Socialist governments and a stagnant economic culture that Sarkozy is trying to change.
The US, not even SF, would not welcome the proportion of logements sociaux, public housing that exists in France. The American dream means owning your own home, which is why there is such an outcry over the foreclosures.
A better comparison of SF rent controls would be other US cities, or perhaps London.
Fonzi is right that buying long-term rental property in France is even worse than buying it in the People’s Republic of Yerba Buena.

Strong rent control favors landlords because:
1. It limits the ability of other landlords to cut rent. Since they know they’re entering a long-term relationship, it’s better to let something sit vacant for a few months than cut rent just to get someone in there. For you, the benefit is that you don’t have to cut rent to remain competitive during a downturn.
2. Renters stay longer. So you save on downtime. And even if you don’t spend much on maintenance, renters are stuck.
3. It makes owning less attractive — therefore renting is more attractive.
Don’t believe me? Check rental rates in cities with rent control — SF, NYC, LA — versus cities without — Denver, SLC, Seattle.
For other reasons why rent control is landlord friendly, check out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control

“Pets are also effectively defenseless against the heartless decision of a capitalist property owner”
Regarding rights for pets, here’s an interesting SFWeekly article which describes how any tenant can have essentially any pet they want, regardless of what the lease says, by saying they need the pet to cope with psychological disability and then giving a twisted reading to the Americans with Disabilities act:http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-06-17/news/service-with-a-snarl
Anyway, the long-term goal of rent control and renter’s rights, for those who understand these things, is to destroy the business of landlording, thereby driving out the poor people so that San Francisco becomes an exclusive enclave of the rich.

Conifer,
Correct that many are doing tourist rentals. One of my remaining 2 rentals in Paris is a corporate rental with 3 to 12 months limit. A bit more work to manage but higher margins (30% more than the regular market) and less risk from bad tenants. So far I do not regret it but I charge a bit less than the competition (I have no debt on it). 35 months occupied out of 36.

When will Daly propose legislation to have landlords just give their property to the tenants? Probably end up being less expensive for the owner! Daly and Mar are so far over the top one can only hope that the only way for them to go is down!

Yeah – I’m a supporter of rent control (given the whole prop 13 subsidy thing) and think most of the landlord whiners on this board and on this thread are full of cow-dung (why are you still renting a place you own if its such a lousy business model)?
But I think I can agree with others that Daly’s act is getting tired. What a tool.

Um, gosh everyone, you are really missing the whole point of this.
Obviously, no one would ever rent to people with kids if this passed, so the board of supervisors would never pass it. But here, they know that the Mayor will veto it, so they pass it wholehartedly.
Now lets look at the scoreboard:
Supervisors get an atta boy from the renters to further their reelections: check. Mayor gets an atta boy from the property owners to help (as if that’s possible) with the conservative groups in his run for Governor: check.
And yet, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING has actually happened!
I have frequently noted that all real estate is theater, and that’s all this was. Politics is about getting votes while actually doing stuff for the people who donate to your reelection or are going to support you on the outside. You pretend to care about the little guys to get reelected. Nothing more. This whole thing was just a charade to further the politician’s political interests. Everyone knew it was DOA before they even got started.
Hopefully, you didn’t fall for it.

Not entirely a waste of time, nor mere political theater. The specter of yet another protected tenant class has been revealed.
Regardless of the short-term outcome of this legislature, I won’t rent to families or “potential families”.

I am a renter and I think this legislation is a) stupid b) political theatre but I honestly hope those of you openly declaring you’ll break Fair Housing laws get caught. Ellis your buildings, sell your buildings, do something besides declaring you’ll not rent to a current protected class. That’s just cruel, heartless, and only serves to reinforce the stereotype that landlords here are evil.

Lyqwyd wrote:
> As far as allowing roommates to be added at will, that would
> result in an original tenant charging rent increases to the new
> roommates, while paying less themselves.
This already happens in San Francisco, there are thousands of renters that pay very little rent since a roommate pays more and a smaller but still large number of long term renters that that have a roommate pay “more” than the rent control rent due to the landlord. Under the current laws and rent board you can basically ad a roommate any time you want and there is nothing a landlord can do about it as long as the “roommate” does not have a problem with perjury (most don’t) and says they are just a “friend” stopping by to visit…

SF passed a law in the early 2000s that made it illegal for a master tenant to make money on subtenants. I know many a non-lease subtenant who had a falling out with their master tenant roommate and took them to the Rent Board because the master tenant was overcharging them.
That doesn’t mean there are a large number of non-lease subtenants who are unaware of this and are getting shafted, but the law *was* changed to eliminate this obvious way for people to game the system.

ug wrote:
> Strong rent control favors landlords because…
I won’t even take the time to respond since this must mean that every landlord that I have ever met (or heard of) is an idiot since none of them want rent control.
> For other reasons why rent control is landlord friendly, check out:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control
And we all know that anything on Wikipedia is a fact that is not even worth debating…

TruthSpeaker wrote:
> Regarding rights for pets, here’s an interesting SFWeekly article
> which describes how any tenant can have essentially any pet they
> want, regardless of what the lease says, by saying they need the
> pet to cope with psychological disability and then giving a twisted
> reading to the Americans with Disabilities act:
I have had two tenants try this. Both times I asked them to give me a letter from a board certified doctor qualified to evaluate the need for a pet as allowed under the ADA. I then looked them in the eye and told them that I thought they were full of sh*t and once I got the letter I would do everything in my power to get a copy of that letter to everyone they had anything to do with so any current or future employees and current and future boyfriends would know about the psychological problems and would be prepared to make the same accommodations I was making under the terms of the ADA (I never got a letter from either of them and the need for a pet never came up again)…

Ok, Eric, your melodramatic post has shown me the error and evil of my ways. In the future I will only rent to members of protected tenant classes. Bonus points to ex-convicts with a letter of reference from Kamala Harris. Chris Daly is My Co-Pilot. You might want to tighten your seat belt.

tipster… what is wrong with venting about what is wrong? While Daly loves getting the special interest group he hates more than anything worked up (tax payers), missing the point would be to say nothing.
But instead of ranting about Daly, we should really do something about the morons and junkies who line up to vote for him and likely will do the same for that crackpot failed artist/communitst Debra Walker next year.
Complaining about Daly is like complaining about Batista in 1958 Cuba… unlikable, evil and unqualifed to run a country. But after Castro rolled in… Batista looked pretty good.
Stoping Walker would be a better use of time than recalling Daly.

Daly is being completely selfish here, he knew that if his proposal passed, it would be disastrous to the RE market and RE value, he did it just to earn fame for himself.
Why not spending his time and energy to come up with ways to improve local economy, that benefits both tenants and landlords?
For example, how about free up TIC financing (by separating the title) to create more transactions, that would benefit everyone involved in the whole process, title company, appraisers, loan agents, handyman, internal design……..
SF is a beautiful place. do something to make it better, not worse.

Does anyone know if Rob Black is running again next year in District 6? I guess I always thought that when the next election rolled around in 2010, all the new development in SOMA might change the dynamic and change the progressive hold on this district (making a Daly protégé less likely to get elected)

District elections here are pretty much fixed. There’s no way a moderate candidate can ever win outside of 2 (Northern) and possibly 7 and 4 (which have more property owners than the eastern parts of the city). Daly, I’m sure, has already hand picked a successor and that person will win.
Also, I’m still trying to figure out the math.. Daly has been supervisor since 2000 (!) How is that even possible?

When we had citywide elections, the BoS was a tool of Willie Brown. No one wants to go back to that kind of corrupt machine politics again.
If it is only possible to elect a “moderate” in three districts, how do you possibly expect to get a majority on the board?
San Francisco today is actually more liberal than it was 10 years ago. If you succeed in your misguided mission to go back to citywide BoS elections, you will probably end up handing a permanent, maybe even veto-proof majority to the lefties.
You should thank Bevan Dufty for his vote as well. He is actually one of the true moderates in San Francisco politics.

For example, how about free up TIC financing (by separating the title) to create more transactions
Okay, I’m not a lawyer or finance type, but what you’re talking about sounds like a condo. I’m not sure how else you could ‘separate the title’ on an undivided interest in real property (with a right to exclusively occupy a particular unit).

“But instead of ranting about Daly, we should really do something about the morons and junkies who line up to vote for him and likely will do the same for that crackpot failed artist/communitst Debra Walker next year.”
Step 1, stop calling voters “morons and junkies”.
Step 2, stop calling your opponents “crackpots”.
Is “Hey listen up you morons and junkies, don’t vote for crackpot X, vote for candidate Y” really a good campaign slogan?

The correct term is Housing Provider. Renter hath not the ugly connotation and medieval derivation associated with their nomenclature. Landlords had serfs, minions, and vassals. Property owners are the ones saddled with “death pledges” (mort-gage, literally). We don’t have any landlords here, and as long as San Franciscans keep using that antiquated term, prejudice and bias prevents rational discourse. There are housing providers, and there are renters. It is a transaction, not a class war.

It is a transaction, not a class war.
No, it’s a political struggle over scarce resources, as is often the case. There are zoning laws that limit the availability of housing, mortgage interest deductions, phony depreciation deductions, government backed mortgages, Federal Reserve intervention in the mortgage market, deposit insurance for banks, fair housing laws, subsidized housing, government housing, eviction controls, property taxes, rent control, and banks/agencies on life-support to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars.
So, rent control is just one strand in a huge web of political decisions, each of which benefits some group at the expense of another. Yes, within this framework, transactions do occur, but this discussion is about the shaping of the framework, which is a political issue — hence the talk about the BoS.
And the fact that renters typically earn half the income of owners means it’s naive to think of this as anything other than a class war, although it is one comically waged.
BTW, “mortgage” is not a death-pledge, but a “dead pledge”, meaning that the pledgeis killed off, by means of amortization payments — your comment suggested that the pledgers were under some threat of death, linguistically.